JOEY WASHINGTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentences.
Appellant was convicted of controlled substance offenses and sentenced as an habitual offender. The trial judge failed to make specific findings requi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Possession Of A Controlled Substance With Intent To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant appeals his convictions of three counts of sale of a controlled substance and one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, and his sentences as an habitual offender of 30 concurrent years on each count. We affirm the convictions but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing.
In sentencing appellant as an habitual offender, the trial judge failed to make a specific finding that he meets each of the criteria of section 775.084(l)(a) (1989). As this court recently declared in Jones v. State, 606 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992): “The failure to make such findings constitutes reversible error.” Therefore, appellant’s sentences are hereby reversed and this cause is remanded for resentencing in compliance with section 775.084.
ERVIN and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. OPINION ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND SUGGESTION FOR CERTIFICATION
WIGGINTON, Judge.
The state has filed a motion asking this court to certify to the supreme court the question certified in Jones v. State, 606 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We grant the motion and, as in Jones, certify to the supreme court the following question of great public importance:
DOES THE HOLDING IN EUTSEY V. STATE, 383 S0.2D 219 (FLA.1980), THAT THE STATE HAS NO BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO WHETHER THE CONVICTIONS NECESSARY FOR HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCING HAVE BEEN PARDONED OR SET ASIDE, IN THAT THEY ARE “AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AVAILABLE TO [A DEFENDANT],” EUTSEY AT 226, RELIEVE THE TRIAL COURT OF ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO MAKE FINDINGS REGARDING THOSE FACTORS, IF THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY RAISE, AS THE DEFENSE, THAT THE QUALIFYING CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY THE STATE HAVE BEEN PARDONED OR SET ASIDE?
ERVIN and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Washington, 620 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 1993)…PER CURIAM. The decision of the district court of appeal in Washington v. State, 610 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), is before this Court for review based on a certified question. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The decision under review is quashed and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1993).…
-
Washington v. State, 637 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…WENTWORTH, Senior Judge. Joey Washington has appealed from an habitual felony offender sentence imposed on remand in Washington v. State, 610 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We reverse, and remand for reinstatement of the original judgment and sentence. Washington appealed his conviction of four drug offenses and the resulting concurrent 30-year habitual felony offender terms. This court affirmed t…1 / 2
-
Washington v. State, 625 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…s court’s original decision in this case affirmed appellant’s conviction but reversed his sentence as a habitual felony offender for failure to make sufficient findings pursuant to section 775.084(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). Washington v. State, 610 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). On review of a certified question concerning the findings required in sentencing one as a habitual offender, the supreme court quashed our decision on this issue and remanded the case for further proceedings in accordance with S…
Authorities Cited
- William v. Jones, 606 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)